HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 14

Case :- BAIL No. – 9820 of 2017

Applicant :- Sandeep Verma

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chandra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.86/2015, under Sections 377 I.P.C. Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station – Biswan, District – Sitapur.

Occurrence in this case is shown to have taken place on 25.03.2018 in the night at about 8.30 PM. It is stated that the cousin of the complainant aged about 6 years was allured by the applicant on the pretext of providing him toffee to him and taken him nearby field, where the present applicant was found committing unnatural offence with him. He was seen in the torch light, then this F.I.R. was lodged on 28.03.2015.

It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as per medical report, no injury was found on the private part of the victim was found and even in the pathological report, no spermatozoa was seen.

Opposing the bail, learned A.G.A. has stated that the victim has supported the version of the F.I.R. in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The applicant is in jail since 2.6.2015. the statement of the victim does not get support with the medical report.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

Let applicant (Sandeep Verma) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 3.9.2019

S. Kumar